Re: FHIR RDF ordered list preferences?

Property paths help for some queries, but it is still hard to query all 
items in a list (of unknown length) and get them back *in order*.  See 
the explanation here:
http://goo.gl/8PNuAG#heading=h.r5k2cm3j5iua

David Booth

On 05/06/2015 04:27 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> Lists aren't that bad anymore in SPARQL, now that property paths are
> available: http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2014/04/rdf-lists-and-sparql.html
>
> Jim
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:25 PM David Booth <david@dbooth.org
> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>
>     In defining the RDF representation of FHIR data, we need to maintain
>     element ordering in some cases, both because ordering can be
>     semantically relevant (such as listing someone's preferred mailing
>     address first in a list of addresses), and to support round-tripping of
>     FHIR RDF data back to FHIR XML.  Because native rdf:Lists are difficult
>     to query in SPARQL, we have talked about using some other list
>     representation.  To inform our decision we would like to get input on
>     people's preferences.  Here are the options we are considering:
>
>        Ordered List Ontology (OLO)
>     http://smiy.sourceforge.net/olo/spec/orderedlistontology.html
>
>        Collections Ontology (CO)
>     http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/owlapi/http://purl.org/co/
>
>        Simple List Conventions (SLC)
>     http://goo.gl/8PNuAG
>
>     To see how these three compare, the Simple List Conventions document at
>     http://goo.gl/8PNuAG includes comparisons with OLO and CO, and an
>     explanation of the difficulty of using native rdf:Lists in SPARQL.
>
>     Please indicate your opinion here:
>     http://goo.gl/forms/zXn2b4ueoM
>
>     Thanks!
>     David Booth
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 20:31:36 UTC